4 total
Class action settlement approval adjourned due to lack of procedural fairness in the claims challenge process.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $10 million class action settlement and class counsel fees regarding an alleged investment leveraging scheme.
While the court found the settlement quantum and proposed counsel fees to be fair and reasonable, it refused to approve the settlement at this time due to a lack of procedural fairness.
Specifically, the settlement administrator failed to implement a transparent challenge process for class members to dispute their individual compensation amounts, as required by the settlement agreement.
The motion was adjourned to allow the parties to implement the required challenge process.
Settlement approval adjourned due to absence of promised challenge process for class members.
The court considered a motion seeking approval of a proposed $10 million class action settlement relating to investment advice involving leveraged borrowing to purchase mutual or segregated funds.
Although the court found the overall settlement amount to be fair and reasonable in light of litigation risks, potential appeals, and the complexity of individualized damages, it determined that the settlement administration process lacked procedural fairness.
Specifically, the settlement agreement required a “challenge” mechanism allowing class members to contest the calculation of their compensation, but the administrator had not implemented a meaningful challenge process.
Several objectors raised concerns about how their losses were calculated and were given no adequate opportunity to dispute the administrator’s determinations.
The court therefore declined to approve the settlement at that stage and adjourned the motion to allow implementation of a proper challenge process.
Close-call summary judgment motion results in costs in the cause fixed at $12,000.
Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion concerning unpaid invoices and an equitable counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs order.
The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $36,000.
The court held that substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure require unreasonable conduct or bad faith, neither of which was established.
Given that the summary judgment motion had merit and was described as a close call, the court ordered that costs be in the cause and fixed them at $12,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
Summary judgment denied where factual disputes and counterclaim required full trial.
The plaintiff helicopter services provider brought a motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid invoices under a services agreement for helicopter transportation at a remote mining exploration site.
The defendant mining company disputed portions of the invoiced charges and asserted a counterclaim alleging damages arising from the conduct of a pilot, including events affecting relations with a local community and allegedly unnecessary flight charges.
The court considered Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation” test from Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch.
The court held that the factual disputes, including credibility issues and the potential application of equitable set‑off, were sufficiently intertwined with the plaintiff’s claim that they required resolution at trial.
Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
